As BB pointed out in this morning’s reads, there is a distinct lack of diversity showing up in Obama’s cabinet appointments. It would be easy for me to drag out the old MS magazine cover showing Obama as the new vision of Feminism for ridicule. I could also send out a few calls for Romney’s binders filled with women. But, the original picture and the visual of all those white guys and the leg of Valerie Jarret still just seems to be the best representation of the bigger problem.
Today, the president appointed the 4th white male in a row to what are considered the top cabinet positions. Obama’s second term is the result of an election that showed the decreasing representation of white men in the populace. It’s obviously not trickling up to the positions of power and voices that will be heard, be counted, and will matter when setting policy. I’m wondering what white man will become chief of staff at this point.
The topic of diversity in the Obama administration was also raised by the press. Jay Carney–white male–parried questions from the front row of the self-serving and pleased White House Press Corps. Btw, they are all white men too. But, it’s not just the women that have noticed that the advisers on major economic policies and issues on deck for the next four years seem to come from that same old boys groups. Don’t the people that vote for you get a seat at your table? Aren’t we among the powerful and qualified now?
“The first black president,” MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing began, “and he’s getting questions about diversity. Are these questions fair? Are you concerned?”
Rangel replied that he is concerned and the questions about a lack of diversity in the White House are fair.
“It’s embarrassing as hell,” Rangel said. “We were very hard on Mitt Romney – with his women binder, and a variety of things – and, I kind of think there’s no excuse when it’s the second term.”
Rangel said that there could be “the Harvard problem” at work in this instance. He said that women and minorities simply do not have the access to high ranking officials in Washington and, thus, are rarely promoted to positions of authority.
That said, Rangel thought that, after four years, there was no excuse for the president to not have a qualified stable of minorities and women to promote to high ranking posts in the White House.
“He’s had four years to work the bench, to work the second team, so that – in the second term – these people should be just as experienced as any other American,” Rangel concluded.
The issue of diversity took up the entire segment, but started to grow contentious when the BBC’s Katty Kay sought to downplay the lack of diversity in Obama’s cabinet while noting that Mitt Romney‘s “binders full of women” comment resonated because it reinforced the “1950s” attitude some perceived him having toward women.
“This is what’s wrong with political reporting,” Scarborough charged. The left took a “faux pas” and blew it up — but in Obama’s case, they’re talking about “something that matters.” Actual cabinet positions. That led to some back-and-forth between the two, who plainly disagreed.
As the segment went on, Brzezinski noted that Susan Rice could have been another woman in Obama’s cabinet had Republicans not “routed” her out. “Talk about old guys being completely chauvinistic jerks,” she remarked, as Scarborough noted David Axelrod‘s assertion that Rice hadn’t been considered for the Secretary of State position. Brzezinski countered that the president’s policies speak to his commitment to women’s issues.
Still, the show went on… until Scarborough’s joking around proved to be too much for Brzezinski who told him, “You’re being chauvinistic right now.” She can make personal attacks, Scarborough retorted, but “you’ve got a president you worship on this show every day.” Yet she “savaged” Romney. Had the president been Republican, she’d have been upset about the issue, he argued.
“You really — knowing me and seeing me work around here for five years — you want to call me a chauvinist on television?” Scarborough asked, with Brzezinski replying that she wasn’t calling him that.
“I said the way you’re acting is chauvinistic,” she responded, “especially the way you were handling this conversation. It’s not funny.”
Irin Carmon at Salon also writes about Obama’s White House: Still white, overwhelmingly male saying that “The stale sameness of the president’s second-term Cabinet picks belies the administration’s rhetoric on diversity.” BB included this link this morning and it was a compelling read and worth repeating.
Today on TV, I’ve watched Joe Biden take point on gun violence just shortly after taking the lead on the latest rounds of negotiations on the budget, tax, and spending deals. Yet, look at whose lives are overwhelmingly impacted by gun violence or by cuts in government spending and obsessive tax cutting for rich people? Is it folks like Biden? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a few voices at that bargaining table that realize what’s at stake? There has to be more to policy making that putting Washington DC insiders and power players at the head of the table. There are many qualified women and minorities that have come in through the ranks of the state department, the pentagon, the treasury, and many businesses. The most feared person by Wall Street this days is grandmother and Senator Elizabeth Warren. The two people most involved with gun violence prevention laws have been victims of violence or close to victims of gun violence themselves. That would be Senator Dianne Feinstein and Long Island Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. They’ve been on top of the gun violence issue since starting out in federally elected positions. How about any black member of congress representing an urban district? Couldn’t they have a place at the table along with Joe Biden instead of being shuttled in for an interview with the likes of the NRA lobbyist?
On Thursday, New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen called the lack of women among the new appointees “disappointing.” Shaheen, whose state elected the nation’s first all-female delegation in November–-with two female senators, a female governor, and two congresswomen–appeared on Andrea Mitchell Reports Thursday to discuss the new White House cabinet and the importance of women in government.
“I would hope the president would follow New Hampshire’s lead,” Shaheen told Mitchell, pointing to the fact that women account for half of the population of the United States. “He still has an opportunity,” she added. “He has places where he could appoint women, and I hope he’ll take a look and do that.”
As for Jack Lew’s soon-to-be-open post as chief of staff, the front runners are Denis McDonough and Ron Klain. McDonough, a current Obama advisor, and Klain, a former chief of staff to vice President Biden, are also white men. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, one of the few women in the president’s cabinet, announced her resignation on Wednesday, leaving the White House with even fewer X chromosomes. This is not just a public relations problem for President Obama and his staff. According to Shaheen, it is a problem for democracy.
“We have different life experiences,” Shaheen told Andrea Mitchell. “We need a government that looks like America, so we can address the concerns that we hear from across the spectrum.”
It’s good that we’re at least getting some air time on this issue. However, I really doubt it will do much good. I guess we’ll see what happens with the next few appointments. I should add that women’s groups shouldn’t be the only one’s complaining here. I wonder if we’ll begin to see some folks offer up some binders full of Hispanics, African Americans, and other minorities too. Oddly enough, as I published this, I just got an action email from NOW with the topic being “Where are the Women?” It’s probably better put to ask where are the people that look like all of us who voted for you?
I have a nasty cold, so if I don’t make a lot of sense this morning, please try to make allowances. I just hope I don’t get the flu. Mayor Menino declared a public health emergency in Boston yesterday because there have been 700 confirmed cases of flu in the city. This morning The Daily Beast reports that there is a “major influenza epidemic taking hold across the country.”
New York City and much of the U.S. are a week or two into a major influenza epidemic. Boston declared a public-health emergency Wednesday after reporting four deaths, and North Carolina is seeing its biggest number of cases in a decade. To place the problem into graphic, corporate terms, the charts sent around to compare this year’s activity against that of other years have required re-scaling to accommodate the scary red line going up and up.
Public health officials are telling people it’s not too late to get a flu shot, but according to this article, this year’s vaccine may not be working so well.
One alarming possibility is that this year’s vaccine against influenza is not well-matched to the current disease-causing strains. This exposes a significant problem in the modus operandi of influenza vaccine production—it’s mired in techniques and approaches developed before World War II; in fact soldiers from that war were among the first to get this brand of vaccine. Here’s how it works: each year, around February, world experts select from a menu of dozens just three influenza strains—two of flu A andone of flu B—to place into the coming season’s vaccine. More than three would require a shot with too large a volume and might blunt the body’s immune response. Once selected, the three viruses are grown painstakingly, on hen’s eggs (what year is this?) then, after a big enough crop has been raised, the virus is killed and stabilized and sent around for injections—all on the hope that the experts guessed right.
To date, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found strong agreement between the vaccine strains and the current clinical strains, suggesting the vaccine ought to work just fine. But some clinicians have their doubts. This much activity, is the thinking, can only be due to extremely limited protection from vaccine. For some, it feels like 2009 all over again, when the novel flu strain, so-called because it had never previously been seen in people or animals, appeared. That was the year that spring-break revelers from Queens who had gone south of the border brought back an altogether new strain. Because of its novelty, no vaccine was active against it (at least at the start), so we saw the unchecked spread of influenza zipping across the country in no time flat.
So is that happening again? We won’t know until there is more testing of this year’s strains.
President Obama is getting a lot of criticism for turning his “inner circle” into a “boy’s club.” From Tuesday’s NYT:
In an Oval Office meeting on Dec. 29, 11 of President Obama’s top advisers stood before him discussing the heated fiscal negotiations. The 10 visible in a White House photo are men.
In the days since, Mr. Obama has put together a national security team dominated by men, with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts nominated to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as the secretary of state, Chuck Hagel chosen to be the defense secretary and John O. Brennan nominated as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Given the leading contenders for other top jobs, including chief of staff and Treasury secretary, Mr. Obama’s inner circle will continue to be dominated by men well into his second term.
From the White House down the ranks, the Obama administration has compiled a broad appointment record that has significantly exceeded the Bush administration in appointing women but has done no better than the Clinton administration, according to an analysis of personnel data by The New York Times. About 43 percent of Mr. Obama’s appointees have been women, about the same proportion as in the Clinton administration, but up from the roughly one-third appointed by George W. Bush.
The skew was widespread: male appointees under Mr. Obama outnumbered female appointees at 11 of the 15 federal departments, for instance. In some cases, the skew was also deep. At the Departments of Justice, Defense, Veterans Affairs and Energy, male appointees outnumbered female appointees by about two to one.
At Salon, Irin Carmon writes:
Diversity in any sense is something that doesn’t really happen unless you try, and if the Obama administration is trying with its top-level appointments, other priorities have clearly trumped it. This doesn’t have to be because of a conspiracy: A lifetime of seeing almost exclusively white men as authority figures has a way of perpetuating itself, and without much self-examination or effort, people tend to go with a certain comfortable framework. (This is true despite the president being a black man; as anyone who has worked for a woman or a person of color who was the first to stake out a spot on hostile turf can tell you, racism and sexism aren’t exclusively white male phenomena.) But it’s still a problem that needs to be talked about, over and over again, until something changes.
Carmon concludes her post with some excellent questions:
…leadership matters, and here we are with this top-level lineup of too-familiar faces. Hillary Clinton is gone, and we don’t have Sheila Bair, Michele Flournoy or Susan Rice (a pretty good selection given that “pipeline problem”) and another white man is expected to succeed Jack Lew as chief of staff should be become the treasury secretary. The numbers look even worse now that Hilda Solis, a Latina woman, has resigned as secretary of labor.
So here are some follow-up questions: Will John Kerry carry on the legacy of Hillary Clinton in encouraging female leadership and entrepreneurship around the world? Will Chuck Hagel, if confirmed as secretary of defense, fully and fairly implement the progressive changes in the military the administration supports, including the partial expansion of abortion access for service-members and dependents, despite his past opposition? How independent will Lew be from the Wall Street boys’ club’s values and logic? And how will the administration do better on this stuff next time, if it does indeed care about it?
At least Eric Holder’s announcement that he is staying on at Attorney General will keep Obama’s cabinet from being made up of only white men.
The Presidential Inauguration Committee announced Tuesday that the President Obama has selected Pastor Louie Giglio of the Georgia-based Passion City Church to deliver the benediction for his second inauguration. In a mid-1990s sermon identified as Giglio’s, available online on a Christian training Web site, he preached rabidly anti-LGBT views. The 54-minute sermon, entitled “In Search of a Standard – Christian Response to Homosexuality,” advocates for dangerous “ex-gay” therapy for gay and lesbian people, references a biblical passage often interpreted to require gay people be executed, and impels Christians to “firmly respond to the aggressive agenda” and prevent the “homosexual lifestyle” from becoming accepted in society.
Read quotes from Giglio’s sermon at the Alternet link.
Buzzfeed notes that the White House hasn’t yet responded to the criticism of the Gigio choice.
The White House on Wednesday was refusing to address comments critical of gay and lesbian people made by Rev. Louie Giglio, who was tapped by President Barack Obama to deliver the benediction prayer at the Jan. 21 inaugural ceremony….
The inaugural invitation is not Giglio’s first interaction with Obama. He also was one of the president’s guests at the White House’s 2012 Easter prayer breakfast, according to the White House pool report from the April 4, 2012 event.
This past November, Giglio served as the convocation speaker at the Jerry Falwell-founded Liberty University. Although he did not address homosexuality in the speech, he did strongly urge visiting high-school students to attend the college known for its strict policies against homosexual behavior and spoke about the positive influence Falwell has had on his life.
While Giglio did not talk about gay issues directly, he did reference gender roles in a striking way, speaking of a time he started crying very hard. He explained, “I started bawling, I mean, sobbing. Not crying like men cry. I started crying like women cry.” Continuing, he explained what he called the unwritten rules for men who cry, telling the students, “A man never looks at another man that’s crying. That’s the rule.”
If you’ve been watching the Rachel Maddow show recently, you’ve heard about the Shell Oil rig that went aground in Alaska last week. Connie from Orlando sent me a couple of links on Rachel’s interview with Rep. Ed Markey last night on Shell’s lies. From the Maddow Blog: One man’s near miss ecological disaster is another man’s swells. Watch the video here.
Paul Ryan is up to his old tricks. From Laura Bassett at HuffPo: Paul Ryan Cosponsors New Fetal Personhood Bill.
Despite the deep unpopularity of fetal personhood bills in 2012, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has again decided to cosponsor the Sanctity of Human Life Act, a bill that gives full legal rights to human zygotes from the moment of fertilization.
Ryan, who reportedly has 2016 presidential ambitions, had to de-emphasize his opposition to abortion without exceptions during the 2012 election to align his position with presidential candidate Mitt Romney. But this year, Ryan has been tapped as a keynote speaker for the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List’s sixth annual Campaign for Life Gala, and he is re-upping his support for the most extreme anti-abortion legislation in the country.
The personhood bill, first introduced in 2011 by Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and reintroduced by Broun last week, specifies that a “one-celled human embryo,” even before it implants in the uterus to create a pregnancy, should be granted “all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” Similar legislation has been rejected by voters in multiple states, including the socially conservative Mississippi, because legal experts have pointed out that it could outlaw some forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization as well as criminalize abortion at all stages.
Broun said in a statement that a zygote’s right to life should be “defended vigorously and at all costs.”
“As a physician, I know that human life begins with fertilization, and I remain committed to ending abortion in all stages of pregnancy,” he said. “I will continue to fight this atrocity on behalf of the unborn, and I hope my colleagues will support me in doing so.”
Of course Republican governors are still trying to limit access to abortion, and the Center for Reproductive Rights has designed a “monitoring tool” that can be downloaded to track what’s happening in the states.
The tool outlines State obligations under international and regional human rights law on a range of reproductive rights issues—freedom from discrimination, contraceptive information and services, safe pregnancy and childbirth, abortion and post-abortion care, comprehensive sexuality education, freedom from violence against women, and HIV/AIDS. The tool then identifies key questions that human rights experts, monitoring bodies, and civil society can use to assess to what extent a State is in compliance with its obligations.
I want to end with something more positive from Emily Esfahani-Smith at The Atlantic about the differences between the pursuit of happiness and the search for meaning: There’s More to Life Than Being Happy. It’s about Victor Frankl, author of Man’s Search for Meaning. I highly recommend it.
And here’s something nice: and unreleased track from Jimi Hendrix, recorded in the late 1960s.